Responding to J

This post is actually a collection of what would be comments on my own blog posts responding to @kostylomusic's comments on my posts, but it felt weird to me to separate such a compendium of ideas, many of which are vaguely connected, to the individual posts where they would have to be searched for and read in order to find context.

If you prefer it that way, I've provided links to the original posts as sub-heads, but my responses are collected here.

Power to the Sheeple

In essence, the first part of your argument is saying that we are all the same because we are all different and so the idea of a status quo to begin with must be false; I cannot deny that. But as an idea and concept, the status quo exists, and it is one of those vague, "normalized" notions that everyone understands but no one can ever quite define.

A lot of my background in this idea of normalization of society is based in my reading of Grant Morrison's the Filth and the "Status Quo" of that graphic novel and more generally, my experience as a student journalist through high school and seeing the kind of mass media effects on our country. So when I say something is agreed upon by society I generally mean the kind of agreement you would find were you to poll the general public.

I agree that parts of me will always fit into somebody's interpretation of status quo, but do the parts make the whole? Am I as a self-identifying individual defined by the facets of myself that other people label? And here we come to an impasse, because I don't think so and wouldn't want it to be so.

But I tend to follow a very Gestaltist line of thought on these matters and perceive problems and ideas as wholes, which is why I'm always trying to connect and build what I'm learning in say Eng 227 to Eng 238 to Eng 203 to Anthro 201 to Physics, Linguistics, etc.

In short it comes down to the difference between the 1 vs 100 line of definitions and which you follow. You make a good case here that I will always fall into the status quo in some way on the individual level and that is not a bad thing, but just as anything it does not hold true the wider and broader you open that lens.

People will always be able to put me into different boxes, but it is the act of defying the box that I attempt to seek. And so it comes with a level of cognition, being able to recognize the boxes and subvert them as much or as little as is in my power and desire.

There's an egotistical, arrogant side of me that I think unavoidably flavors posts like this one because they're about me and how I view the world.

myroommate-my-profile

"So what? … What happens now, Danny? What happens now..."

Much like the silence that permeated our classes on Wednesday, I don't really have a set answer for this, Joe. The most I can tell you is what I would like to see happen, what I can see happening based on prior experience and from a combination of the two what will most likely happen.

A Sudden Exodus

And here you've asked a question I've been asking myself for months. What do I want?

And I must say, there are days when I want nothing more than escape. Because you're very right in saying that I keep myself busy as a distraction. It is easier for me to become engaged in this, that and the other thing. It's almost a demand of my extroversion that I find something to occupy my times. Idle hands are the devil's playground.

Which isn't to say I don't like being involved in the things I keep busy with. Hell, I love them to death, but recognizing them as distractions from other aspects of my life poses a problem. Because of my inborn sense of order/honor/rules I cannot willingly abandon my involvement. I've made a commitment and intend to keep it.

But what of when that ends? And I'm no longer beholden to that activity? Perhaps what I need is a little devil in my life.

We Have An Infestation

Again, we come to the question of what I want. And in this particular context, I think I prefer not to answer the first part of your comment because after talking with Kai and Andrew during our Bacon Cookie (debacle? Adventure? Whatever you feel like calling it.) we agreed that answering this first part would only ever result in an incomplete answer. I would need some kind of reflection of how they view our collective relationship. In order to fully comprehend the nature of the relationship.

Yes, a lot of this is introspection on my part and there is value in that, but the strength in that kind of observation and critique would be in comparison, with perhaps an outside observation. Perhaps Kai and Andrew (and I think Tony since he's seen us together the most) would be willing to write a small piece on this three-way interaction.

As far as the second part goes, I think you hit the nail on the head as the saying goes when you ask if I have been feeding, guesting, leeching "all along, under the mask of the host." Because when it comes down to it, is not the rule of the extrovert to do so?

Relating again back to the Bacon Cookie Adventure, I found myself tired. At my youth mentoring that I do every Thursday afternoon, I sat and watched a slideshow, nodding off.

Change my context a few hours later though, put me in a room with friends, and I'm wired. I'm still tired. I'm rhyming apparently, but I have the ability to maintain the kind of mental focus I was unable to sitting and watching a slideshow.

In short, I was feeding off the energy of the room. And I suppose technically I was not host to begin with as we were at Andrew's apartment, but this interaction really applies to all of my relationships.

Were The World Mine

My thoughts on Were the World Mine
In case you can't read my handwriting:

Yesterday, when Josh from my English class posted links on Plurk and Facebook about Were the World Mine, I decided I had to see it. There are few enough quality films with openly gay protagonists that actually have a relevant, interesting plot. I liked it to say the very least, but less so for the basic storyline so much as the interruption of Status Q the actions of Timothy cause.

Based on A Midsummer Night's Dream, Timothy quite literally takes on the role of Robin Goodfellow, creating a mixed up world where the lines of love are redrawn according to his whim. In that respect, the story of the film is very much based off the story of the play the characters in the film are participating in.

Puck has always been known as a character of chaos and trickery. And we are but mortals subject to the will of those above us, so when we suddenly find ourselves in that position, of having that power, we become the anti-person.

Timothy makes the star rugby player fall in love with him, but in doing so alienates and aggravates his community.

Movies like this make me sad. Yes, there was a happy ending, but it comes across as contrived to me. I always wince at the smiles and the kiss at the end. It's unrealistic and creates an illusion of possibility. There are no magical love flowers in real life.

A sunflower in a cornfield

On some level, I've always been uncomfortable interacting with other gay men. By and large I think it has to do with intimidation. Most of the queer community is far more open to new and different things than the rest of our heteronormative society.

I'm all for that, and have even been told that I'm open with myself and sharing who I am more so than most. But I'm not used to being surrounded with it. So it's a stark and scary difference when I cross that threshold.

I've been pretty isolated from what we call the gay community, mostly because I've lived a pretty sheltered, suburban life in general. And I think the fact that having never experienced the queer community combined with never having experienced any kind of hardship for my sexuality puts me in a limbo of sorts. I'm dancing in that greygoo (not Grace) between the alternatives. I don't mind this. I don't usually think about it actually. But so much of what defines the queer community is that solidarity. They (We?) are united because we aren't the same as "normal" society, and we're treated differently for it. I have a hard time identifying with that.

I'm hopelessly oblivious to homophobia in part because of my personality. Stress and negative emotions don't last for very long. I'm too much the optimist to both notice and care when insults are thrown my way. There was this one time in high school where I was wearing my ocean shirt, and as some jock-type and his girlfriend walked past me in the hallway, the guy said "Nice puppets, fag." The first thing to go through my mind was that they weren't puppets. They were Beanie Babies. People laugh at that story because I'm offended at probably the least offensive part of what that guy said, but that's truly how I think.

And in this way, I'm not really all that unique, but I think without meaning to I defy Status Q because of it. I don't follow what is expected. I revel in observing controlled chaos, not for the chaos' sake but for the reactions people have. Puck, Loki, Eros, Mercury, Anansi: so often they're tricksters causing mischief and mayhem, but usually only as it serves their purposes. It's not madness for the sake of madness but a message or a show of power.

There is always something to be learned in the patterns that show up among the seemingly random.

Space Administration

I'm currently fascinated by a small facet of my nanotexts class.

Earlier this quarter we discussed the idea of moving our classroom from its current space (Old Main 482) to a room more conducive to the technological integration our specific class is geared toward.

A part of requesting this classroom change is talking with the Space Administration here at Western.



As far as I know, we have yet to receive any kind of response.

Despite that though, I think we're still half expecting to get approval to move rooms at some point.

The point I'm trying to make though is that in a way we are at odds with the Space Administration (insert non-existant hyperlink to Space Administration here).

The black box that you see Prof Pritchard (is it weird that I think of him as Tony or Nanotext?) moving is one of those lectern-speaker boxes made available (apparently by the Space Administration) for Professors to lecture from.

That I know of, no professors use this box at all. And yet somehow it still finds its way on top of the table at the start of every class.

I've taken this almost ritual moving of the black box from the table to the floor at the beginning of every class to represent a kind of symbolic sticking it to the SA.

We shall not use your box. We do not believe in your ideals. Give us our space! By moving this simple box, we represent our solidarity in defying the SA. And yet, it's an empty gesture, because here we are, still finding ourselves in OM-482.